Leaders: A shape finally emerging for a consitutional settlement

THE concession by the SNP in offering to put a “devo plus” option on the independence ballot paper instead of “devo max”, if there is a groundswell of support for the less radical option, is a development of huge significance for the constitutional debate.

The Nationalist’s move last night came after a new group was launched to support “devo plus”, a proposal by which Scotland would have responsibility for income tax, corporation tax and her share of North Sea oil revenue but, unlike the “devo max” option, not raise all taxes north of the Border.

There are two ways of interpreting this offer. It could be seen as the SNP, as democrats, accepting they should respond to the views of a large swathe of the Scottish body politic which has long demanded more powers but been nervous about breaking from the UK or even “devo max”, which is fiscal independence. Another, less charitable, interpretation would see this as an admission of weakness by a Nationalist administration which knows that Scots are likely to vote no to independence but is looking for a face-saving way to preserve their cause.

To be fair, First Minister Alex Salmond has always been a gradualist within the SNP, a stance not always backed by the majority of his party, including some who are now in his cabinet. But so important is any move away from “devo max”, the danger for Mr Salmond is his whole referendum project being called into question.

If the Nationalist government is prepared to accept a far more powerful Scottish Parliament – one which would give Holyrood the powers this paper has long advocated to ensure the fiscal responsibility of raising much of the money spent here – but is not fiscal or political independence, what is the point of an independence referendum they know they will lose? No point at all will say the SNP’s opponents.

Yet it is nigh on impossible to envisage Mr Salmond giving up on the referendum which was promised in his party’s manifesto. Given his gradualist credentials, it is possible to see the First Minister argue that “devo plus” would be a major step forward, which is factually correct as it would give Scotland powers over powerful taxation levers. It is also possible to see the idea would have attractions for the Tory party, with David Cameron able to assuage his anti-Scottish right-wingers by pointing out devo plus would end the Barnett formula and the mythical subsidy of Scotland by England.

In a briefing yesterday, a senior SNP figure said that, after independence, which he did not fully define, Scotland would remain “one of the British nations”, an argument which fits with the pattern of the SNP accepting Scots dual nationality and the political reality of “devo plus”. After months of wrangling and posturing, it may be we are beginning to see the emergence of, if not agreement, at least an outline of the shape of the new constitutional future for Scotland and the UK.

House of Lairds is just a pipedream

The draftsmen who produced the legislation which created the Scottish Parliament rejected the idea of an upper house at Holyrood for one principal reason: the parliament would have a powerful committee system to ensure the necessary checks and balances to hold the executive arm of government to account.

As with the claim it would be impossible for one party to win office outright, it has not turned out like that. Even under the first two administration, the supposedly strong committees tended to be dominated by the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition parties, softening, if not neutering, their impact. They are now completely subservient to the majority SNP administration.

There is, therefore, a case for establishing a “House of Lairds” at Holyrood, to provide legislative scrutiny and a counter to an over-mighty executive, something which David Cameron’s guru Philip Blond advocates today. Mr Blond is right in theory but wrong in practice.

It would be useful to have a small upper house, perhaps made up of those with experience in public life, local communities and business, to revise legislation and provide those famous checks and balances. In practice, the last thing the long-suffering electorate want is another layer of politicians in Scotland on top of councillors, MSPs, MPs and MEPs.

There might be scope in future for such a reform if the governance of the nation was substantially overhauled, including introducing elected provosts and far fewer councillors, but until that time, a House of Lairds is just a constitutional pipedream.

We are becoming a nation of coffee-shop keepers

Just how much more coffee can we drink? Yesterday Whitbread announced a major expansion of its Premier Inn budget hotel chain and its Costa coffee network. Edinburgh will see the number of Premier Inns rise from five to seven, while the number of Costa coffee stores – already up by 158 to 1,375 over the past year – is to rise even further. An additional 20 coffee outlets are being planned for Scotland. Add this to the continuing expansion of Starbucks, Coffee Republic and others and it’s beginning to feel as if our high streets offer little but caffeine. Yesterday it was estate agents. Now it is the coffee cafe with its cappuccinos, expressos, latte (skimmed and semi) and other variations.

Years ago the cafe acted as a high street pick-me-up for weary shoppers. Now you need a shopping break between the coffee outlets. The cafes, most with wi-fi connections, are the first-choice gathering point for the iPad generation. It hardly seems credible that so many outlets in prime locations can survive financially just by serving coffee.

But of course the coffee shops never intended just to wet our whistles. With industrial quantities of coffee sold in over-large cups, it’s hardly surprising we fall for pastries and muffins to soak it all up – a break for two can make short work of a tenner.